That would be logical and we don’t do that here.
Stop that.Whether I agree with you depends on whether “here” means “lemmy” or “this country.”
Yes, that’s how it works in many countries.
Same applies to housing the homeless, but benefiting society isn’t the point. It is not enough to win, someone else must also lose.
Welcome to Capitalism where you have to pay for basic human rights.
We have health care in Canada yet still lots of street homeless people. They aren’t getting adequate care at all, yet the cost of caring for them exceeds the average person by many times. Many of them are on a first name basis with all the paramedics and other first responders due to how often they’re taken to the emergency room.
Same in the UK :/ although I’d never want an American style healthcare system
You guys are getting close to it though. With your “Two Tier” system, You’ve slowly almost choked the public side of health care to death.
Ok, but, I never said universal healthcare would solve homelessness. In America we have the same cost except we’ve made it illegal to be homeless and pay to keep them in prison.
Well… that just sounds like socialism to me; so now we’re friends.
Not having preventive health care if like having a car, hear it make too many strange noises and not fixing it until it breaks and you end up on the side of the road upside down. You “didn’t spend money” in minor fixings but you end up paying a lot more.
Thanks for reminding me about all the stuff that needs fixing on my car.
how are we going to know we’re better than other people though, this is the most important thing.
How does that help the shareholders gain more wealth to hoard though?
Pay them with publics funds but give them no liability and no pricing oversight
Like we do in Canada (Ontario) for regular healthcare
Entrepreneurs and small business would benefit tremendously. I had my own business and my health insurance was crazy expensive and has a terribly high deductible.
I don’t know because I’m in the US, but does universal healthcare in other countries cover autism-related therapies and care such as ABA, occupational and speech at the rates recommend by docs (our docs recommended 20+ hours/week - or roughly the cost of $100k/year)? And is that factored into the equation?
I haven’t seen the official modeling, just assumptions around the internet. But back of the napkin math suggests that appropriate autism care alone could be quite high: 1/36 of the 341,500,000 American residents have autism. Assuming 15% need care in the range of $100k, would be somewhere around $138b/year for just autism care. Does that seem in line with what you are thinking? Either way, are you able to point me to some of the modeling you have found? I’d love to learn more about how it tactically works.
Fyi ABA is considered highly unethical in the autism community.
Fair, take that piece out of the equation. Our docs still advised us on 20+ hours of therapy, all of which is costly.
I’m autistic and I don’t think I need twenty hours of therapy per week.
That sounds excessive to me.
Probably would be - age plays into it as well. My kids are pretty impacted - minimal language, safety issues, etc. I suspect it can vary widely.
I didn’t speak until I was 4 years old. Safety issues were handled by teaching me to swim, light campfires and bonfires and fireplace fires, use power tools, a little firearm safety, and how to interact with horses without getting kicked.
Mom knew I was a special kid, so she pushed me out the door a lot. Like she knew I was extremely different. I distinctly remember her and I sitting at the kitchen table, and her saying that if my face didn’t show emotion spontaneously I was just going to have to fake it to fit in because the world wasn’t going to work if I kept my wooden face.
I had a ridiculous temper. I fought (as in physically fought) my friends often. It always led to cathartic release and an improvement of our bond, which boy fights predictably do.
Sometimes I feel extremely fortunate to have grown up in the 1980s and not today. The way autistic kids are coddled today can be utterly inhumane. It instills in them a self image as a broken person who cannot fit in. That self image is far and away more damaging than autism.
Now, I know some people are unable to vocalize other than incoherent groaning at the age of twenty. I wasn’t that bad.
But among the kids who were enrolled in school, able to form sentences, I had it pretty bad and my little shithole town just treated me as “one of them weird kids”, and it worked out. Our cultures have had autistic people since the dawn of time; the expertise coming out of labs isn’t the only source of wisdom on how to help them lead good lives.
I’m just doing some simple deductive reasoning. If a person who suffers from a disability receives life changing care and are able to rejoin the workforce you have taken someone who would otherwise cost tax payers and have added an income stream to the tax pool. Similarly you may provide care to people who aren’t necessarily disabled but have no means to get a life changing diagnosis and medication which allows them to complete higher education.
For every person you take out of the prison system and put into the workforce you are freeing up resources while also creating resources.
Man, I wish the hundreds of thousands of dollars of care we got positioned my kids into the workforce. Our reality is that all that while the care did help and make their lives much better - it won’t translate into productivity or self sufficiency. 🙁 I am super worried that will practically mean a universal healthcare system in the US limits disability care because it isn’t deemed as having a good enough ROI.
Thats irrelevant. Your children will still receive care no matter what.
My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life. And that very concept could risk society’s willingness to pay for any disabled person’s full care under universal healthcare.
You are making lots of false assumptions and I will assume it’s intentional.
No, it is from unfortunate personal experience. Special needs families get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways - ours included. Feel free to IM me about it if you want specific anecdotes. After killing myself to get my kids what they need (navigating insurance denials, waiting lists for specialists, underfunded and confusing government programs, lack of childcare, hitting out of pocket maximums year after year, and taking jobs that leave me exhausted and with little family time to pay for it all), I have a huge defense mechanism for anything that sounds like it can quickly and easily solve this kind of situation - because I’ve been repeatedly shown it is a pipe dream. It doesn’t mean UHC isn’t a noble cause or the right way to go. But the reality is that it probably won’t be much of a qualitative change for families like ours. And it is hard to hear that our experiences and fears are not valid.
I hear where you’re coming from. I can’t even begin to imagine how tired you are after all these hardships. The fact that you’re still writing civil replies to the other person is commendable.
I would like to respectfully say that universal healthcare would have eliminated the need to navigate insurance denials and out of pocket maximums. If we add a more robust social safety net to the equation, you may also not have to worry about childcare and having to stretch yourself thin with work… Would eliminating these battles really not have brought qualitative changes (for the better) for your family?
You’re the one making a lot of assumptions based on what was originally a shower thought. It’s a nice thought but it’s completely and utterly incorrect in reality.
My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life.
This isn’t an assumption, it’s a data point that contradicts your hypothetical theory.
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is your assumption that treating mental illness and disabilities will result in the person becoming a productive member of society. This is occasionally true, but much more commonly, the treatment serves to alleviate the more severe symptoms of the condition, without actually curing or fixing the condition.
Healthcare is primarily about minimizing the damage and suffering caused by various physical and mental ailments. It can’t magically transform people into something they’re not.
How would a universal healthcare system exclude people?
I’m talking about net benefits. Obviously not everyone can be made whole but sorry for not explaining that in a showerthought.
As an autistic person my primary struggles are productivity and self sufficiency. What factors in their life got better if not those things?
My kids don’t have full language capabilities, they struggle with fixations (which means learning has to be customized to their fixations or it won’t happen), and they don’t have enough situational awareness to be safe.
So, therapies are helpful in getting them enough language to have basic needs met (and minimize behavior issues), practicing doing things they don’t prefer for short bursts and learning things like how to behave in a parking lot. We may never get to productivity or self sufficiency - we are focused on staying alive.
Where’s your math coming from? There’s a ton of folks on the spectrum that don’t need assistance at all.
I just estimated that 15% need care. So that would leave a huge number that don’t - you are right.
“Want to get support” is not the same as “need 20h of a specialists time each week”
You are right, which is why I used 15%, instead of 82%.
But what do you base those 15% on? Might as well be 1%, or even lower. In the end its just your own intuition, based on nothing. Hell, if they were capable of answering that survey, I don’t think they’d need that much support.
Nothing, back of the napkin math for discussion purposes based on the 2 diagnosisea and doc recommendations we’ve gotten. Totally can adjust if you have a more accurate number.
Your first mistake is to use US prices as if that’s what the care actually costs.
20+ hours of anything is costly if you are paying the therapists appropriately. The issue is that their work is 1:1 and doesn’t scale easily.
And?
Doesn’t change the fact that US prices are orders of magnitude out of proportion. You simply can’t use it as a yardstick.
Now, if you’re looking at the plain amount of material, manufacturing, infrastructure, and labour required, then you’re making sense.
But it seems you’re making the argument that too many people cost more to care for than they are “worth” in terms of economics, and would be too great a burden on the productivity of the healthy for a universal healthcare system to function.
But that’s not even close to true. Universal healthcare is essentially an attempt at triage on national scale. To apply resources where they do the most good.
In comparison, commercial market healthcare is just less efficient across the board. A universal system is able to provide more care for more people at less cost, even if it isn’t able to do so for everyone in every situation.
No-one is claiming universal healthcare systems save everyone and care for every ailment, every time. The argument is that it’s simply the smarter way to use the resources a country has.
So, you totally hit the nail on the head. I couldn’t agree more: It is about maximizing resources for overall good. It is just that some groups may not see a qualitative difference in care.
the math has already been done. we pay more for less care in the united states than places with universal health care.
health insurance companies only profit by denying claims. profit only comes when humans suffer.
The suffering keeps the working class busy.
Keeps them knee capped.
This is the root of it.
Piled on top of that are layers upon layers of middlemen rent-seekers. The amount of parasitic corporate bullshit that goes on behind the scenes whenever you go to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription would blow most people’s minds.
The good news is, awareness is growing, and there are a few good actors in government trying to do something about it. It’s very much an uphill battle, though.
TBH the bigger problem is, even if we did have full funding, we just don’t have the necessary amount of trained physicians. There would still be a backlog.
Did you just make a case for free college? I think you did.
Same thing with crime and basic needs. It costs less to give people housing, food, etc, than to staff the police and infrastructure for jails. Once you realize that, you realize it’s not about the cost. It’s about the cruelty.
That’s how you can see the true nature of the system. It isn’t designed to maximize production, it is designed to subordinate production.
As someone in the final stages of a masters degree in healthcare management and economics:
Almost. It doesn’t entirely cover the costs (at least from the data we have available worldwide, which is somewhat insufficient) but a focus on mental health(which always includes workers rights, women’s rights and a few more social issues that create long term health problems on a massive scale) and prophylaxis in general is FAR cheaper than what most industrial nations currently do.
We do have a few issues that are not addressed in these concepts (e.g. end of life care and costs associated with that, new types of personalised medication, accessibility in rural areas,etc.) that still make a healthcare system like that something society has to pay for…But it does improve things massively, especially the quality of life of people that are not the actual patients.
